Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3428029.3428050acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageskoli-callingConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Should Explanations of Program Code Use Audio, Text, or Both? A Replication Study

Published: 22 November 2020 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Studies in educational psychology suggest that people learn better when visual learning materials are accompanied by audio explanations rather than textual ones. Research on how this modality effect applies to computing education is scarce and inconclusive. We explore whether modality of instruction affects learning from videos that use a series of example programs to explain how variables work in Python. Learners (n=186) were crowdsourced from the internet and randomized in three groups, who received explanations as audio, text, or both, respectively. We did not find significant differences between the groups in near transfer to code-tracing tasks or perceived cognitive load. The result affirms the need to further investigate instructional modalities in programming education. There are a number of theoretical, methodological, and instructional-design factors that may explain these and earlier findings; we trace out future research that could explore those factors.

    References

    [1]
    Eryn J. Adams, Anh T. Nguyen, and Nelson Cowan. 2018. Theories of working memory: Differences in definition, degree of modularity, role of attention, and purpose. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 49, 3, 340–355.
    [2]
    Marie Amalric and Stanislas Dehaene. 2016. Origins of the brain networks for advanced mathematics in expert mathematicians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, 18, 4909–4917.
    [3]
    Ian Arawjo. 2020. To write code: The cultural fabrication of programming notation and practice. In ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
    [4]
    Viviane C. O. Aureliano, Patricia C. de A.R. Tedesco, and Michael E. Caspersen. 2016. Learning programming through stepwise self-explanations. In Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies(CISTI ’16).
    [5]
    Katherine Ann Austin. 2009. Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual diffences and display design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules. Computers & Education 53, 4, 1339–1354.
    [6]
    Mohammad Reza Azadmanesh and Matthias Hauswirth. 2017. Concept-driven generation of intuitive explanations of program execution for a visual tutor. In IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization. IEEE, 64–73.
    [7]
    Alan Baddeley. 1992. Working memory. Science.
    [8]
    Christina Areizaga Barbieri and Julie L. Booth. 2020. Mistakes on display: Incorrect examples refine equation solving and algebraic feature knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 862–878.
    [9]
    Maik Beege, Sascha Schneider, Steve Nebel, and Günter Daniel Rey. 2020. Does the effect of enthusiasm in a pedagogical agent’s voice depend on mental load in the learner’s working memory?Computers in Human Behavior 112.
    [10]
    Marina Umaschi Bers. 2019. Coding as another language: a pedagogical approach for teaching computer science in early childhood. Journal of Computers in Education.
    [11]
    Nicolas Biard, Salomé Cojean, and Eric Jamet. 2018. Effects of segmentation and pacing on procedural learning by video. Computers in Human Behavior 89, 411–417.
    [12]
    Lori Breslow, David E. Pritchard, Jennifer DeBoer, Glenda S. Stump, Andrew D. Ho, and Daniel T. Seaton. 2013. Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first MOOC. Research and Practice in Assessment.
    [13]
    Steve Buchheit, Derek W. Dalton, Troy J. Pollard, and Shane R. Stinson. 2018. Crowdsourcing intelligent research participants: A student versus MTurk comparison. Behavioral Research in Accounting 31, 2, 93–106.
    [14]
    Sabine Buchholz and Javier Latorre. 2011. Crowdsourcing preference tests, and how to detect cheating. In Twelfth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association(INTERSPEECH ’11).
    [15]
    Teresa Busjahn, Roman Bednarik, Andrew Begel, Martha Crosby, James H. Paterson, Carsten Schulte, Bonita Sharif, and Sascha Tamm. 2015. Eye movements in code reading: Relaxing the linear order. In IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension. 255–265.
    [16]
    Martin C. Carlisle. 2010. Using YouTube to enhance student class preparation in an introductory Java course. SIGCSE’10, 470–474.
    [17]
    Charles H. Chen and Philip J. Guo. 2019. Improv: Teaching programming at scale via live coding. In Learning at Scale(L@S ’19). ACM.
    [18]
    Ouhao Chen and Slava Kalyuga. 2019. Exploring factors influencing the effectiveness of explicit instruction first and problem-solving first approaches. European Journal of Psychology of Education.
    [19]
    Nelson Cowan. 1998. Attention and Memory: An Integrated Framework. Oxford University Press.
    [20]
    Suzanne L. Dazo, Nicholas R. Stepanek, Robert Fulkerson, and Brian Dorn. 2016. An empirical analysis of video viewing behaviors in flipped CS1 courses. In Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 106–111.
    [21]
    Björn B. de Koning, Vincent Hoogerheide, and Jean Michel Boucheix. 2018. Developments and trends in learning with instructional video. Computers in Human Behavior 89, 395–398.
    [22]
    Barbara Ericson, Steven Moore, Briana B. Morrison, and Mark Guzdial. 2015. Usability and usage of interactive features in an online ebook for CS teachers. In WiPSCE ’15. ACM.
    [23]
    Barbara J. Ericson, Lauren E. Margulieux, and Jochen Rick. 2017. Solving Parsons problems versus fixing and writing code. In Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research(Koli Calling ’17). ACM, 20–29.
    [24]
    Evelina Fedorenko, Anna Ivanova, Riva Dhamala, and Marina Umaschi Bers. 2019. The language of programming: A cognitive perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
    [25]
    Pedro Guillermo Feijóo-Garcíaand Christina Gardner-McCune. 2020. Using student-created instructional videos in CS upper-level courses: A successful strategy in a functional programming course. In 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education.
    [26]
    James B. Fenwick Jr., Barry L. Kurtz, and Philip Meznar. 2013. Developing a highly interactive ebook for CS instruction. In The 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education(SIGCSE ’13). ACM, 135–140.
    [27]
    Logan Fiorella and Richard E. Mayer. 2018. What works and doesn’t work with instructional video. Computers in Human Behavior 89, 465–470.
    [28]
    Benjamin Floyd, Tyler Santander, and Westley Weimer. 2017. Decoding the representation of code in the brain: An fMRI study of code review and expertise. In 39th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE/ACM.
    [29]
    Stephen R. Foster and Lindsay D. Handley. 2020. Don’t Teach Coding (Before You Read This Book). John Wiley & Sons.
    [30]
    Paul Ginns. 2005. Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction 15, 4, 313–331.
    [31]
    Inga Glogger-Frey, Corinna Fleischer, Lisa Grüny, Julian Kappich, and Alexander Renkl. 2015. Inventing a solution and studying a worked solution prepare differently for learning from direct instruction. Learning and Instruction 39, 72–87.
    [32]
    Mitchell Gordon and Philip J. Guo. 2015. Codepourri: Creating visual coding tutorials using a volunteer crowd of learners. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing(VL/HCC ’15). IEEE.
    [33]
    Lassi Haaranen. 2017. Programming as a performance – Live-streaming and its implications for computer science education. In ITiCSE ’17. ACM, 353–357.
    [34]
    Michael Hansen, Robert L. Goldstone, and Andrew Lumsdaine. 2013. What makes code hard to understand?arXiv e-prints.
    [35]
    Qiang Hao, David H. Smith IV, Naitra Iriumi, Michail Tsikerdekis, and Amy J. Ko. 2019. A systematic investigation of replications in computing education research. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 4, 42.
    [36]
    Kyle J. Harms, Jason Chen, and Caitlin Kelleher. 2016. Distractors in Parsons problems decrease learning efficiency for young novice programmers. In The 12th International Computing Education Research Conference. ACM, 241–250.
    [37]
    Arto Hellas, Albina Zavgorodniaia, and Juha Sorva. 2020. Crowdsourcing in Computing Education Research: Case Amazon MTurk. In Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research(Koli Calling ’20). ACM.
    [38]
    Panagiotis G Ipeirotis, Foster Provost, and Jing Wang. 2010. Quality management on Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD workshop on human computation. 64–67.
    [39]
    Allison J. Jaeger, Joanna A. Marzano, and Thomas F. Shipley. 2020. When seeing what’s wrong makes you right: The effect of erroneous examples on 3D diagram learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology 34, 844–861.
    [40]
    Dayu Jiang and Slava Kalyuga. 2020. Confirmatory factor analysis of cognitive load ratings supports a two-factor model. 16, 3, 216–225.
    [41]
    Dan R. Johnson and Lauren A. Borden. 2012. Participants at your fingertips. Teaching of Psychology 39, 4, 245–251.
    [42]
    Slava Kalyuga. 2011. Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need?Educational Psychology Review 23, 1–19.
    [43]
    Slava Kalyuga. 2011. Instructional benefits of spoken words: A review of cognitive load factors. Educational Research Review 7, 145–159.
    [44]
    Slava Kalyuga, Paul Chandler, and John Sweller. 1999. Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cogn. Psychology, 351–371.
    [45]
    Slava Kalyuga and Anne-Marie Singh. 2016. Rethinking the boundaries of cognitive load theory in complex learning. Educational Psychology Review 28, 831–852.
    [46]
    Kandarp Khandwala and Philip J. Guo. 2018. Codemotion: Expanding the design space of learner interactions with computer programming tutorial videos. In The Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale(L@S 2018). ACM.
    [47]
    Andreas Korbach, Roland Brünken, and Babette Park. 2018. Differentiating different types of cognitive load: A comparison of different measures. Educational Psychology Review 30, 503–529.
    [48]
    Ryan Krueger, Tyler Santander, Westley Weimer, and Kevin Leach. 2020. Neurological divide: An fMRI study of prose and code writing. In 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM.
    [49]
    David Landy and Robert L. Goldstone. 2007. Formal notations are diagrams: Evidence from a production task. Memory & Cognition 35, 8, 2033–2040.
    [50]
    Wayne Leahy and John Sweller. 2016. Cognitive load theory and the effects of transient information on the modality effect. Instructional Science 44, 1, 107–123.
    [51]
    Michael J. Lee and Amy J. Ko. 2015. Comparing the Effectiveness of Online Learning Approaches on CS1 Learning Outcomes. In The Eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research.
    [52]
    J. Leek, R. D. Peng, and B. Caffo. 2020. Why automated videos?https://www.coursera.org/lecture/data-scientists-tools/why-automated-videos-enUSz
    [53]
    Jimmie Leppink. 2020. Revisiting cognitive load theory: Second thoughts and unaddressed questions. Scientia Medica 30, 1–8.
    [54]
    Jimmie Leppink, Fred Paas, Cees P. M. Van der Vleuten, Tamara Van Gog, and Jeroen J. G. Van Merriënboer. 2013. Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior research methods 45, 1058–72.
    [55]
    Jimmie Leppink, Fred Paas, Tamara van Gog, Cees P. M. van der Vleuten, and Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer. 2014. Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction 30, 32–42.
    [56]
    Tze Wei Liew, Su-Mae Tan, Teck Ming Tan, and Si Na Kew. 2020. Does speaker’s voice enthusiasm affect social cue, cognitive load and transfer in multimedia learning?Information and Learning Sciences 121, 3/4.
    [57]
    Vicki Likourezos and Slava Kalyuga. 2017. Instruction-first and problem-solving-first approaches: alternative pathways to learning complex tasks. Instructional Science 45, 2, 195–219.
    [58]
    Raymond Lister. 2016. Toward a developmental epistemology of computer programming. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education(WiPSCE ’16). ACM, 5–16.
    [59]
    Lauren E. Margulieux and Richard Catrambone. 2017. Using learners’ self-explanations of subgoals to guide initial problem solving in App Inventor. In The 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 21–29.
    [60]
    Lauren E. Margulieux, Richard Catrambone, and Laura M. Schaeffer. 2018. Varying effects of subgoal labeled expository text in programming, chemistry, and statistics. Instructional Science 46, 707–722.
    [61]
    Samiha Marwan, Joseph Jay Williams, and Thomas Price. 2019. An Evaluation of the Impact of Automated Programming Hints on Performance and Learning. In The 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research.
    [62]
    Myrto F. Mavilidi and Lijia Zhong. 2019. Exploring the development and research focus of cognitive load theory, as described by its founders: Interviewing John Sweller, Fred Paas, and Jeroen van Merriënboer. Educational Psychology Review 31, 499–508.
    [63]
    Richard E. Mayer (Ed.). 2014. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
    [64]
    Richard E. Mayer. 2020. Multimedia Learning(3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
    [65]
    Briana B. Morrison. 2016. Replicating Experiments from Educational Psychology to Develop Insights into Computing Education: Cognitive load as a Significant Problem in Learning Programming. Doctoral dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology.
    [66]
    Briana B. Morrison. 2017. Dual modality code explanations for novices: Unexpected results. In The 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research(ICER ’17). ACM, 226–235.
    [67]
    Briana B. Morrison, Brian Dorn, and Mark Guzdial. 2014. Measuring cognitive load in introductory CS: Adaptation of an instrument. In The Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research(ICER ’14). 131–138.
    [68]
    Seyed Yaghoub Mousavi, Renae Low, and John Sweller. 1995. Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes.Journal of Educational Psychology 87, 2, 319–334.
    [69]
    Gabriele Paolacci and Jesse Chandler. 2014. Inside the Turk. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23, 3, 184–188.
    [70]
    Patrick Peachock, Nicholas Iovino, and Bonita Sharif. 2017. Investigating Eye Movements in Natural Language and C++ Source Code - A Replication Experiment. In 11th International Conference on Augmented Cognition. 206–218.
    [71]
    Norman Peitek, Janet Siegmund, and Sven Apel. 2020. What drives the reading order of programmers? An eye tracking study. In ICPC.
    [72]
    Marian Petre and Alan F. Blackwell. 1999. Mental imagery in program design and visual programming. Int. J. of Human Computer Studies 51, 1, 7–30.
    [73]
    Elizabeth Poché, Nishant Jha, Grant Williams, Jazmine Staten, Miles Vesper, and Anas Mahmoud. 2017. Analyzing user comments on YouTube coding tutorial videos. In 25th International Conference on Program Comprehension(ICPC ’17). IEEE, 196–206.
    [74]
    Scott R. Portnoff. 2018. The introductory computer programming course is first and foremost a LANGUAGE course. ACM Inroads 9, 2, 34–52.
    [75]
    Chantel S. Prat, Tara M. Madhyastha, Malayka J. Mottarella, and Chu Hsuan Kuo. 2020. Relating natural language aptitude to individual differences in learning programming languages. Nature Scientific Reports 10, 1, 3817.
    [76]
    Yizhou Qian and James Lehman. 2017. Students’ misconceptions and other difficulties in introductory programming: A literature review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 18, 1, 1–24.
    [77]
    Günter Daniel Rey, Maik Beege, Steve Nebel, Maria Wirzberger, Tobias H. Schmitt, and Sascha Schneider. 2019. A meta-analysis of the segmenting effect. Educational Psychology Review 31, 389–419.
    [78]
    Juliane Richter, Katharina Scheiter, and Alexander Eitel. 2016. Signaling text-picture relations in multimedia learning: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 17, 19–36.
    [79]
    Anthony Robins. 2010. Learning edge momentum: A new account of outcomes in CS1. Computer Science Education 20, 1, 37–71.
    [80]
    Beth A. Rogowsky, Barbara M. Calhoun, and Paula Tallal. 2016. Does modality matter? The effects of reading, listening, and dual modality on comprehension. SAGE Open 6, 3.
    [81]
    Ralf Rummer, Judith Schweppe, Anne Fürstenberg, Tina Seufert, and Roland Brünken. 2008. Working memory interference during processing text and pictures: Implications for the explanation of the modality effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology 22, 1–13.
    [82]
    Sascha Schneider, Maik Beege, Steve Nebel, and Günter Daniel Rey. 2018. A meta-analysis of how signaling affects learning with media. Educational Research Review 23, 1–24.
    [83]
    Anne Schüler and Maria Gabriela Mayer. 2020. Illustrations before text reduce visuospatial working memory load during text processing. Discourse Processes.
    [84]
    Matthias Schwaighofer, Markus Bühner, and Frank Fischer. 2016. Executive functions as moderators of the worked example effect: When shifting is more important than working memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology 108, 7, 982–1000.
    [85]
    Stoo Sepp, Steven J. Howard, Sharon Tindall-Ford, Shirley Agostinho, and Fred Paas. 2019. Cognitive load theory and human movement: Towards an integrated model of working memory. Educational Psychology Review 31, 293–317.
    [86]
    Jason H. Sharp and Leah A. Schultz. 2013. An exploratory study of the use of video as an instructional tool in an introductory C# programming course. information Systems Education Journal.
    [87]
    Janet Siegmund, Christian Kästner, Sven Apel, Chris Parnin, Anja Bethmann, Thomas Leich, Gunter Saake, and André Brechmann. 2014. Understanding understanding source code with functional magnetic resonance imaging. In International Conference on Software Engineering(ICSE ’14). 378–389.
    [88]
    Simon. 2011. Assignment and sequence: Why some students can’t recognize a simple swap. In The 11th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, Ari Korhonen and Robert McCartney (Eds.). ACM, 16–22.
    [89]
    Beth Simon, Sue Fitzgerald, Renée McCauley, Susan Haller, John Hamer, Brian Hanks, Michael T. Helmick, Jan Erik Moström, Judy Sheard, and Lynda Thomas. 2007. Debugging assistance for novices: A video repository. ITiCSE Working Group Reports, 137–151.
    [90]
    Teemu Sirkiä and Juha Sorva. 2015. Tailoring animations of example programs. In The 15th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research. 147–151.
    [91]
    Glenn Smith and Colin Fidge. 2008. On the efficacy of prerecorded lectures for teaching introductory programming. In 10th Australasian Computing Education Conference(ACE ’08). 129–136.
    [92]
    Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj, Pan Gu, Eda Zhang, Arokia Xavier Annie R., Jim Williams, Richard Halverson, and Jignesh M. Patel. 2020. Live-coding vs static code examples: Which is better with respect to student learning and cognitive load?. In The 22nd Australasian Computing Education Conference. 152–159.
    [93]
    Juha Sorva. 2018. Misconceptions and the beginner programmer. In Computer Science Education: Perspectives on Teaching and Learning in School, Sue Sentance, Erik Barendsen, and Carsten Schulte (Eds.). Bloomsbury, 171–187.
    [94]
    Juha Sorva, Ville Karavirta, and Lauri Malmi. 2013. A review of generic program visualization systems for introductory programming education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 13, 4, 1–64.
    [95]
    Klaus D. Stiller, Annika Freitag, Peter Zinnbauer, and Christian Freitag. 2009. How pacing of multimedia instructions can influence modality effects: A case of superiority of visual texts. Australasian Journal of Educ. Technology 25, 2.
    [96]
    John Sweller. 2010. Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review 22, 123–138.
    [97]
    John Sweller, Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer, and Fred Paas. 1998. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ. Psychology Review 10, 251–296.
    [98]
    John Sweller, Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer, and Fred Paas. 2019. Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review.
    [99]
    Laura Toma and Jan Vahrenhold. 2018. Self-efficacy, cognitive load, and emotional reactions in collaborative algorithms labs — A case study. In The 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research(ICER ’18). ACM.
    [100]
    Camilo Vieira, Alejandra J. Magana, Michael L. Falk, and R. Edwin Garcia. 2017. Writing in-code comments to self-explain in computational science and engineering education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 17, 4, 1–21.
    [101]
    Tamar Vilner, Ela Zur, and Ronit Sagi. 2012. Integrating video components in CS1. In The 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education(SIGCSE ’12). ACM, 123–128.
    [102]
    Peng Wang, Roman Bednarik, and Andrés Moreno. 2012. During automatic program animation, explanations after animations have greater impact than before animations. In Proceedings of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research(Koli Calling ’12). ACM, 100–108.
    [103]
    Jonathan H. Williams. 1998. Guidelines for the use of multimedia in instruction. In The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 1447–1451.
    [104]
    Zhen Xu, Albert D. Ritzhaupt, Karthikeyan Umapathy, Yang Ning, and Chin Chung Tsai. 2020. Exploring college students’ conceptions of learning computer science: A draw-a-picture technique study. Comput. Sci. Educ.
    [105]
    Albina Zavgorodniaia, Rodrigo Duran, Arto Hellas, Otto Seppälä, and Juha Sorva. 2020. Measuring the cognitive load of learning to program: A replication study. In United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research conference(UKICER ’20). ACM, 3–9.
    [106]
    Robert Z. Zheng (Ed.). 2017. Cognitive Load Measurement and Application. Routledge.
    [107]
    Rui Zhi. 2019. Design and Evaluation of Instructional Supports for Novice Programming Environments. Doctoral dissertation. North Carolina State University.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)Seeing Program Output Improves Novice Learning GainsProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3587102.3588796(180-186)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2023
    • (2022)A Review of Worked Examples in Programming ActivitiesACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/356026623:1(1-35)Online publication date: 29-Dec-2022
    • (2022)Cognitive Load Theory in Computing Education Research: A ReviewACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/348384322:4(1-27)Online publication date: 15-Sep-2022
    • Show More Cited By

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    Koli Calling '20: Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research
    November 2020
    295 pages
    ISBN:9781450389211
    DOI:10.1145/3428029
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 22 November 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. cognitive load
    2. introductory programming
    3. learning from examples
    4. modality effect
    5. replication

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    Koli Calling '20

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 80 of 182 submissions, 44%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)41
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
    Reflects downloads up to 10 Aug 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)Seeing Program Output Improves Novice Learning GainsProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3587102.3588796(180-186)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2023
    • (2022)A Review of Worked Examples in Programming ActivitiesACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/356026623:1(1-35)Online publication date: 29-Dec-2022
    • (2022)Cognitive Load Theory in Computing Education Research: A ReviewACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/348384322:4(1-27)Online publication date: 15-Sep-2022
    • (2022)Design Recommendations for Using Textual Aids in Data-Science Programming CoursesProceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 110.1145/3478431.3499290(843-849)Online publication date: 22-Feb-2022
    • (2021)Wrong Answers for Wrong Reasons: The Risks of Ad Hoc InstrumentsProceedings of the 21st Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3488042.3488045(1-11)Online publication date: 17-Nov-2021
    • (2021)Algorithm Visualization and the Elusive Modality EffectProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research10.1145/3446871.3469747(368-378)Online publication date: 16-Aug-2021
    • (2020)Crowdsourcing in Computing Education Research: Case Amazon MTurkProceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3428029.3428062(1-5)Online publication date: 19-Nov-2020

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media